交叉质询与澄清

Thank you. My question for the affirmative is this: Your proposal heavily relies on increased public sector funding, but you've offered no concrete plan for how to mitigate the inevitable tax burden on middle-income households. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Certainly. Our plan outlines a progressive tax increase on corporate profits and high-net-worth individuals, specifically targeting those who can afford to contribute more without significant impact on their livelihood or economic activity. We believe this approach minimizes the burden on middle-income families.

I appreciate the clarification regarding the source of funding. However, you stated 'minimizes the burden,' but given the scale of your proposed social programs, is it truly minimal? Can you provide any projections or data to support the claim that this will not indirectly impact middle-income households through increased consumer prices or reduced job growth?

We anticipate a short-term, negligible inflationary impact, counterbalanced by the long-term economic benefits of a healthier, better-educated workforce. Our economic models, which we can provide for review, suggest that the increased purchasing power and reduced social costs will offset any minor price increases, particularly for essential goods.

So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the trickle-down effect of social improvements will directly alleviate the tax burden, rather than addressing it with direct fiscal policy? Could you confirm that interpretation?

That's not entirely accurate. While we do project long-term societal benefits, our initial fiscal policy, as stated, directly taxes corporate profits and high-net-worth individuals. The improvements in workforce health and education are supplementary benefits, not the primary mechanism for mitigating the initial tax burden. Is that clearer?

It clarifies the distinction. My final point on this: your models, as you mentioned, are projections. Have you considered any contingency plans should the economic benefits not materialize as quickly or as effectively as anticipated, leading to prolonged inflationary pressures or a slower return on investment for these programs?

Yes, our framework includes periodic reviews and a built-in flexibility mechanism. If economic indicators deviate significantly from projections, specific program allocations can be adjusted without compromising core objectives. We also include a buffer in our initial funding estimates. We're confident in our projections, but prepared for contingencies.